Pages

Okay. Folks who know me on these boards know that I'm a gun-totin' redneck from the wilds of Howard County, MD. I stock my safe with "assault weapons" and enough ammo to start a small African revolution. So when I say the epidemiological evidence of straw purchase mills like Realco in Forestville, MD disturbs me, I think it's worthy of a look.

If the proportion of guns they sell that are used in crimes from them is so much significantly higher than the proportion of guns that they sell, then something is wrong. If they do follow the letter of the law, then that suggests that perhaps there's something wrong with the law or with the regulations. However, it's worth noting that the other dealers are also presumably following the law... which means that the proportions really shouldn't be so far off. That they are off implies that these dealers are doing something different and worse than others.

Sweet manager, I cannot code—
slender Aphrodite has overcome me
with longing for a girl.

One can be entirely for decriminalizing of drugs AND for dealing with terrible offenders like Realco.

Sure - but why bother dealing with Realco just to see them replaced with another supplier when you can solve the problem by ending prohibition?

Moreover, it is more than a bit dishonest to say that stopping a notorious source like Realco would have no effect on the flow of guns to criminals.

It's about as dishonest as saying that the next big drug bust is not going to end the illegal drug trade in the United States. How many "major busts" have there been in the last 30 years? Thousands? Tens of thousands? There are more drugs available in more variety and at lower prices today than ever before.

Whatever you believe about our drug policy, it doesn't at all excuse the actions of Realco or the regulatory environment that allows those actions to continue.

No it doesn't - but prosecuting Realco and changing regulations will do nothing to reduce the use of guns in crime in the United States.

OG_Slinger wrote:

Shutting down those FFLs shuts down the source of cheap firearms at the source.

Of course - because criminals are so well known for following the law.

Now who's not accepting the reality of the situation? Do you really think we're going to end the prohibition of drugs anytime soon?

I can tell you this - we'll end drug prohibition long before we're able to stop the flow of illegal drugs or guns, because we've pretty much proven that the latter is an impossibility. As long as guns are in demand by people involved in the drug trade, they WILL be supplied, just like the drugs are, and the violence will continue. The quicker people realize this, the faster we can get on with drug legalization. Prop 19 failed, but only by a pretty thin margin - and medical marijuana passed in Arizona. The momentum is on the side of de-criminalization, and it wouldn't surprise me if marijuana is legal somewhere in the U.S. within two years.

The True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap. - Frederick Douglass

That whole article is full of magical thinking, like somehow RealCo, despite admittedly following the letter of the law precisely, is doing something wrong.

Maybe they're just the closest gun store to high crime areas, ya know? As long as they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, why is it their fault if criminals choose to use their store?

The article is full of direct claims that they're scrupulous in their adherance to regulation, but then loads things up to try to make it look like they're magically to blame for gun crime. It's mythical thinking, "contagion theory", and a very poor article.

There are several other gun stores in the area including a couple of my favorites. None of them have the same issues regarding the high proportion of straw purchases that Realco has. Even when you isolate for demographics, their sourcing of guns to criminals is statistically significant. VERY significant.

Of course they are connected, just as adultery and murder is connected. But saying that you wouldn't be culpable for handing an angry spouse a loaded shotgun in the middle of an argument because "he'll just get it from someone else" is deeply, deeply irresponsible.

One can be entirely for decriminalizing of drugs AND for dealing with terrible offenders like Realco.

Sure - but why bother dealing with Realco just to see them replaced with another supplier when you can solve the problem by ending prohibition?

Ending the prohibition on alcohol didn't create a golden age of the end of crime and ending the prohibition on heroin or crack won't exactly make people law abiding citizens either. This fundamentalist thinking that ending law enforcement will end crime strains credulity. I can agree that decriminalizing drug use. I can not agree that it will magically end crime.

Moreover, it is more than a bit dishonest to say that stopping a notorious source like Realco would have no effect on the flow of guns to criminals.

It's about as dishonest as saying that the next big drug bust is not going to end the illegal drug trade in the United States. How many "major busts" have there been in the last 30 years? Thousands? Tens of thousands? There are more drugs available in more variety and at lower prices today than ever before.

Who said anything about "ending" anything? I accept that criminals will get weapons. I accept that a statistically average number of transactions will be illegal by a function of carelessness or craftiness. What I don't accept is that a company can make a living by deliberately or negligently selling to criminals. This appears to be the case with Realco and several law enforcement professionals I've spoken to on the subject of Realco agree. Many of them are even gun enthusiasts who are otherwise sympathetic to civilian gun ownership.

Furthermore, the control of guns is fundamentally different from the control of drugs. We DO have control over the supply of guns. There aren't any underground firearms factories in the 'hood. No one is making Glocks in the projects. The access to guns begins at gun stores and the vast majority of those gun stores do a pretty good job of preventing the wrong folks from getting them.

Whatever you believe about our drug policy, it doesn't at all excuse the actions of Realco or the regulatory environment that allows those actions to continue.

No it doesn't - but prosecuting Realco and changing regulations will do nothing to reduce the use of guns in crime in the United States.

It will, perhaps, be statistically insignificant when you apply the law of large numbers in the United States, but the impact on the Washington DC area would be tremendously significant. Stop Realco and folks would have to work harder to get guns from other sources. I have personally witnessed folks get walked out or arrested at Atlantic Guns in Silver Spring, Bass Pro Shops in Arundel Mills, and the Gun Rack in Burtonsville. It is entirely possible to be a responsible gun store. Realco just isn't one.

Of course - because criminals are so well known for following the law.

Where do you think criminals get their guns? They get the vast majority of them from a handful of licensed dealers--either buying them directly or through organized straw purchase teams. Do you understand that? Criminals are using the legal system of firearm distribution--one that has been purposefully gimped by the gun lobby in ways that are extremely helpful to the bad guys--to get the weapons they use to commit crimes and kill people.

Closing down a sketchy FFL makes it just a bit harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. Is it a permanent solution? Absolutely not. This is largely because there are tens of thousands of FFL holders and there will always be someone who'd rather take the extra sale then really question why an out of state customer suddenly needs multiple firearms. But every little bit helps.

Aetius wrote:

I can tell you this - we'll end drug prohibition long before we're able to stop the flow of illegal drugs or guns, because we've pretty much proven that the latter is an impossibility. As long as guns are in demand by people involved in the drug trade, they WILL be supplied, just like the drugs are, and the violence will continue. The quicker people realize this, the faster we can get on with drug legalization. Prop 19 failed, but only by a pretty thin margin - and medical marijuana passed in Arizona. The momentum is on the side of de-criminalization, and it wouldn't surprise me if marijuana is legal somewhere in the U.S. within two years.

Momentum is on the side of decriminalization of pot. That's it. Any idea that coke or horse or meth will become legal in our lifetimes is simply crazy.

And you're overly optimistic on how quickly even pot will be decriminalized. The older people are extremely against the decriminalization of drugs so we literally have to wait until they die off before you're going to get a state resolution passed. And when that happens that will simply trigger a never-ending wave of federal lawsuits to overturn the resolution that will have to work their way through the court system until they very likely end up in the Supreme Court who, if you haven't noticed, is slightly on the conservative side these days. This will take decades, if not generations.

So what do we do in the meantime? Simply keep everything related to guns the way they are now since, as you say, guns aren't really the problem? That means you're perfectly OK with a couple of thousand drug-related homicides involving firearms that will happen this year (and every year until all drugs are magically legalized).

Malor wrote:

That whole article is full of magical thinking, like somehow RealCo, despite admittedly following the letter of the law precisely, is doing something wrong.

Maybe they're just the closest gun store to high crime areas, ya know? As long as they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, why is it their fault if criminals choose to use their store?

The article is full of direct claims that they're scrupulous in their adherance to regulation, but then loads things up to try to make it look like they're magically to blame for gun crime. It's mythical thinking, "contagion theory", and a very poor article.

Realco is just a microcosm of how ineffective existing gun regulations are. I mean how effective can all these regulations and laws be if a FFL who scrupulously adheres to them still ends up with their products involved in thousands of crimes? And how effective can the regulatory agency that's supposed to be responsible for monitoring the FFLs actually be if they *know* thousands of guns used in crimes are being traced back to one dealer and yet they haven't done anything to strip them of that license?

Realco also shows how having states with laxer gun regulations are used by criminals to purchase guns that get shipped back to states with harsher regulations. The guns Realco sold didn't turn up in Forestville where its store was located. They turned up miles away in D.C., where, until recently, there was a ban on handguns.

Realco is just the example used in the article. It's a convenient stand in for the entire system of legal firearm distribution that actually *is* responsible for the majority of gun crime. I mean why bother to steal a gun when it's so damn easier just to have someone buy one for you? No fuss, no muss, and it's guaranteed to be clean. Having all the paperwork in order and yet still having those weapons end up being used in crimes simply shows that the system doesn't work. I mean all that paperwork was supposed to guarantee guns weren't sold to bad people.

Since that's obviously not the case, then the existing laws and regulations need to be changed. Except any attempt to do this brings down the wrath of the NRA who will use it's well-oiled political machine to cripple any attempt to address the reality of the gun trade.

That whole article is full of magical thinking, like somehow RealCo, despite admittedly following the letter of the law precisely, is doing something wrong.

Maybe they're just the closest gun store to high crime areas, ya know? As long as they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, why is it their fault if criminals choose to use their store?

The article is full of direct claims that they're scrupulous in their adherence to regulation, but then loads things up to try to make it look like they're magically to blame for gun crime. It's mythical thinking, "contagion theory", and a very poor article.

"I've been playing Rebel Galaxy for the past few days. It has made me appreciate every other game in the genre more." -- Flintheart Glomgold

Where do you think criminals get their guns? They get the vast majority of them from a handful of licensed dealers--either buying them directly or through organized straw purchase teams. Do you understand that? Criminals are using the legal system of firearm distribution--one that has been purposefully gimped by the gun lobby in ways that are extremely helpful to the bad guys--to get the weapons they use to commit crimes and kill people.

They do this only because it's easier. See what I wrote above about the ease of international smuggling and underground gun making.

Closing down a sketchy FFL makes it just a bit harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. Is it a permanent solution? Absolutely not. This is largely because there are tens of thousands of FFL holders and there will always be someone who'd rather take the extra sale then really question why an out of state customer suddenly needs multiple firearms. But every little bit helps.

You could close down every gun dealer in America and it would have zero effect on the availability of guns to criminals. Zero. As we've learned from the drug trade, every little bit actually makes the black market stronger, more efficient, and more effective.

Momentum is on the side of decriminalization of pot. That's it. Any idea that coke or horse or meth will become legal in our lifetimes is simply crazy.

So what do we do in the meantime? Simply keep everything related to guns the way they are now since, as you say, guns aren't really the problem? That means you're perfectly OK with a couple of thousand drug-related homicides involving firearms that will happen this year (and every year until all drugs are magically legalized).

I'm not okay with thousands of drug-related homicides every year. I'm arguing that the current gun market and regulations doesn't matter when it comes to stopping those homicides, and that if we wish to actually stop those homicides, we should look to do something that will actually have an effect. In essence, violent crimes that involve guns are just a symptom, and treating the symptom might make us feel better but doesn't do anything to cure the disease. I think we should cure the disease - it's cheaper and easier!

I mean all that paperwork was supposed to guarantee guns weren't sold to bad people.

Subversion and corruption of bureaucracy is guaranteed when you have a fantastically lucrative illegal market.

Since that's obviously not the case, then the existing laws and regulations need to be changed. Except any attempt to do this brings down the wrath of the NRA who will use it's well-oiled political machine to cripple any attempt to address the reality of the gun trade.

That's because we have a) a Constitution that the Supreme Court has made clear protects the right of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, and b) the NRA, as irritating as they are, understands that these regulations only affect law-abiding citizens, not the criminals they purport to target. There's no change you can make that will have the slightest impact on the availability of guns to criminals in the United States.

The True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap. - Frederick Douglass

Of course they are connected, just as adultery and murder is connected. But saying that you wouldn't be culpable for handing an angry spouse a loaded shotgun in the middle of an argument because "he'll just get it from someone else" is deeply, deeply irresponsible.

I didn't say they shouldn't be culpable, I'm just accepting the reality that they will simply get it from someone else. And we're not talking about domestic crime here, we're talking about violent crime - the vast majority of which is fueled by prohibition.

Ending the prohibition on alcohol didn't create a golden age of the end of crime and ending the prohibition on heroin or crack won't exactly make people law abiding citizens either. This fundamentalist thinking that ending law enforcement will end crime strains credulity. I can agree that decriminalizing drug use. I can not agree that it will magically end crime.

It will not magically end crime. It will end drug-related crime, which is the vast majority of violent crime out there, and with it much of the illegal trade in guns. Closing down Realco is treating the symptom. Ending prohibition is treating the disease.

Jeffrey Miron[/url]]Roughly speaking, therefore, there have been two periods with high homicide rates in U.S. history, the 1920-1934 period and the 1970-1990 period (Friedman 1991). Both before the first episode and between these two episodes, homicide rates were relatively low or clearly declining. Prima facie, this pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that alcohol prohibition increased violent crime: homicide rates are high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect; the homicide rate drops quickly after 1933, when Prohibition was repealed; and the homicide rate remains low for a substantial period thereafter. Further, the homicide rate is low during the 1950s and early 1960s, when drug prohibition was in existence but not vigorously enforced, but high in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition was enforced to a relatively stringent degree (Miron 1999).

What I don't accept is that a company can make a living by deliberately or negligently selling to criminals. This appears to be the case with Realco and several law enforcement professionals I've spoken to on the subject of Realco agree. Many of them are even gun enthusiasts who are otherwise sympathetic to civilian gun ownership.

All I can say is that you need to accept it, because it will keep happening - demand will be met with supply. Ask your law enforcement friends. Realco will be replaced by another source of supply before they are even sentenced. This isn't saying they shouldn't be dealt with, it's just being realistic about the lack of effect such an action will have on the larger picture.

Furthermore, the control of guns is fundamentally different from the control of drugs. We DO have control over the supply of guns. There aren't any underground firearms factories in the 'hood. No one is making Glocks in the projects. The access to guns begins at gun stores and the vast majority of those gun stores do a pretty good job of preventing the wrong folks from getting them.

It's not any different - the only reason no one is making Glocks in the projects is because the black market makes it so trivially easy to obtain guns. If anything, guns are easier to smuggle, we have zero control over the huge international arms market, and the smuggling supply line is already in place. Making an effective gun is almost trivial: see the history of zip-guns. If stores were somehow stopped, underground firearms factories would be a trivial solution to the problem - all you need is a few machine tools and the old Sten gun blueprints as a starting point.

In 2004, an "underground weapons factory" was seized in Melbourne, Australia, yielding among other things a number of silenced copies of the Owen submachine gun, suspected to have been built for sale to local gangs involved in the illegal drug trade.[22]

It will, perhaps, be statistically insignificant when you apply the law of large numbers in the United States, but the impact on the Washington DC area would be tremendously significant. Stop Realco and folks would have to work harder to get guns from other sources. I have personally witnessed folks get walked out or arrested at Atlantic Guns in Silver Spring, Bass Pro Shops in Arundel Mills, and the Gun Rack in Burtonsville. It is entirely possible to be a responsible gun store. Realco just isn't one.

The argument I bolded is the argument the government makes every time there is a drug bust. And every time, every time, the market comes back better, stronger, lower priced, and more available. We've been doing it your way for over 30 years, and we've accomplished nothing except to make a lot of bad people in South America very, very rich and destabilize Mexico. We are way past the point where such actions can possibly be deemed effective.

The True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap. - Frederick Douglass

Have you actually talked with an urban criminal before? It's not about the drugs. It's about the hustle. If it wasn't the drugs it would be teen prostitution, breaking and entering to steal crap, or illegal gambling rings. It's about getting ahead through profitable means available in the 'hood. Take away drugs and you haven't changed a thing. If you were to legalize crack and heroin today, you would not reduce violent crime precisely because you have not addressed the core issue of lack of urban economic opportunity.

That said, that's still just a red herring. It is immaterial to the discussion at hand. The fact remains that keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals is a societal prerogative. We, as a society, have a responsibility to reduce the criminal impact that comes from the negligent or deliberate sale of guns to those folks otherwise legally ineligible. Making this a discussion about drug policy is a huge stretch.

Take away drugs and you haven't changed a thing. If you were to legalize crack and heroin today, you would not reduce violent crime precisely because you have not addressed the core issue of lack of urban economic opportunity.

Yes you have, both because you've made the illegal enterprises much less economically attractive, and because we'll be demilitarizing the War on Blacks.

Much of the reason those inner cities have become so terrible is because they're literally war zones, where the cops are the invading force. If that stops, and crime becomes less lucrative, you should start to see real economic revival in those areas.

"I've been playing Rebel Galaxy for the past few days. It has made me appreciate every other game in the genre more." -- Flintheart Glomgold

Take away drugs and you haven't changed a thing. If you were to legalize crack and heroin today, you would not reduce violent crime precisely because you have not addressed the core issue of lack of urban economic opportunity.

Yes you have, both because you've made the illegal enterprises much less economically attractive, and because we'll be demilitarizing the War on Blacks.

Much of the reason those inner cities have become so terrible is because they're literally war zones, where the cops are the invading force. If that stops, and crime becomes less lucrative, you should start to see real economic revival in those areas.

I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of decriminalizing marijuana use, but explain to me how legalizing heroin and crack cocaine distribution is going to create "real economic revival".

The damage we do through the militarized War on Drugs is far worse for those communities than the drugs themselves would be.

Every country that has experimented with decriminalization has shown excellent results. Drug use doesn't seem to go up, and crime goes way down.

The drugs aren't really the problem, it's the crime associated with OBTAINING the drugs. If they become cheap, then you eliminate the crime problem. And you eliminate the near-total destruction of the inner cities brought about the police-gang wars.

"I've been playing Rebel Galaxy for the past few days. It has made me appreciate every other game in the genre more." -- Flintheart Glomgold

As far as consequences, the rise in accidental overdose of prescription meds, and health concerns associated with obesity seem to be more pressing than narcotics. Oddly enough, narcotic prescription meds are largely our problem. Now, I agree that legalizing(as opposed to simply decriminalizing) would have some serious long and short term consequences. But the amount of money and time wasted on cocaine, marijuana, heroine is insane. Precious little of that money goes towards what really matters-prevention and effective treatment.

Um, crack and meth are already cheap. It's kind of why those drugs are used so much.

Theirs a higher cost associated with them both being illegal, and the horrible social stigma around them. I was more pointing to the fact that even cheaper meth/crack sold in a clean legal venue is going to have some horrible consequences.

Um, crack and meth are already cheap. It's kind of why those drugs are used so much.

Theirs a higher cost associated with them both being illegal, and the horrible social stigma around them. I was more pointing to the fact that even cheaper meth/crack sold in a clean legal venue is going to have some horrible consequences.

Again, what are going to be the horrible consequences?

The few places that have legalized drugs, like Portugal, have experienced a decline in overall drug use, a decline in drug use by teenagers, a decline in the spread of HIV, an increase of drug users who got into a treatment program, and a decrease in law enforcement costs among other things. Sounds absolutely horrible.

The few places that have legalized drugs, like Portugal, have experienced a decline in overall drug use, a decline in drug use by teenagers, a decline in the spread of HIV, an increase of drug users who got into a treatment program, and a decrease in law enforcement costs among other things. Sounds absolutely horrible.

And Portugal has nowhere near the meth epidemic or crack cocaine problem we have here, and has a vastly larger social services network to assist it's addicts. Comparing the US to a far smaller, socially and culturally different nation is apples to oranges.

Portugal also has more restrictive firearms laws than most areas of the US. It has very low levels of gun crime. Therefore, we should highly restrict gun ownership and we will see a sharp decline in gun crime, like Portugal.

The two sides to every story are true and false, not yours and theirs. Facts are not political; lies are. - Deven Green (Mrs. Betty Bowers)

Portugal doesn't have 200+ million firearms in the country before Prohibition, either. The two are not analogous. The availability of guns isn't causing the crime, it's the need for guns to support, primarily, the drug enterprises.

I don't understand why people don't get this. The drugs can't possibly do as much damage as the enforcement efforts to stop them. The drug war is why our inner cities are wastelands. They are war zones. Whole f*cking countries are collapsing because of the drug war, and it's penetrating ever deeper into the core.

Once someone is hooked, they will do anything to get their fix. We cannot, CANNOT win a war with ourselves, when one side of the conflict is absolutely, forever committed to winning or dying. It's an impossibly stupid fight to start, and it's probably causing more misery in the world, and at home, than any other decision we've ever made as a country.

I mean, goddammit, think about it. If we legalized drugs, how could things be worse than they are already?

"I've been playing Rebel Galaxy for the past few days. It has made me appreciate every other game in the genre more." -- Flintheart Glomgold

There is a muddying of terms here- Portugal and certain popular European countries haven't legalized drugs, they've "decriminalized" them. Similar to alcohol, tobacco and guns in the US, their availability and use is regulated by the government, but possession isn't illegal as long as those regulations are followed.

"They say that beauty is only skin deep but your skeleton looks pretty good to me.” -Jamal River

There is a muddying of terms here- Portugal and certain popular European countries haven't legalized drugs, they've "decriminalized" them. Similar to alcohol, tobacco and guns in the US, their availability and use is regulated by the government, but possession isn't illegal as long as those regulations are followed.

"Decriminalized" means illegal, just not that illegal. Pot, for example, is decriminalized in the majority of US States, only incurring a fine for possession under a certain amount (usually something like an oz or a pound or whatever the common denomination is). If it was legal, there would be no fine for it's use, regulated or not. Illegal means if you have any, you go to Jail. Decriminalized means you get a fine/ticket. In Canada Pot use is legal, but growing and/or distributing is illegal. In many US States, Pot is decriminalized, but growing and/or distributing is illegal.

Looking at the Portugal law, it looks like they are similar to Canada, where personal use is legal, but growing and/or distributing is illegal. Canada is actually more lax, as they allow you to grow a small amount for personal use (up to 5 plants I believe) but any growing in Portugal can get you busted for trafficking, under the law.

The few places that have legalized drugs, like Portugal, have experienced a decline in overall drug use, a decline in drug use by teenagers, a decline in the spread of HIV, an increase of drug users who got into a treatment program, and a decrease in law enforcement costs among other things. Sounds absolutely horrible.

And Portugal has nowhere near the meth epidemic or crack cocaine problem we have here, and has a vastly larger social services network to assist it's addicts. Comparing the US to a far smaller, socially and culturally different nation is apples to oranges.

Interesting how you've ducked the question (again) about what the horrible consequences of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs would be.

On the side of reality, we have Portugal. They changed their drug policies and got actual results.

On the side of fantasy, we have the 'war on drugs'. Four decades and billions of dollars and we got...nothing. Well, not nothing. The war on drugs was so effective we got a crack and meth epidemic that somehow managed to explode even while we were shoveling money into anti-drug operations. I mean at a certain point you just have to admit that things are working and go back to the drawing board.

Malor wrote:

Portugal doesn't have 200+ million firearms in the country before Prohibition, either. The two are not analogous. The availability of guns isn't causing the crime, it's the need for guns to support, primarily, the drug enterprises.

But the easy availability of guns courtesy of a broken system of oversight, criminal or simply shady FFLs, and the NRA is a huge contributing factor to the crime and violence that comes from drug enterprises. If guns were harder than hell to get a hold of you likely wouldn't have seen the levels of violence and death that came along with the spread of crack in the 90s. There is a link.

As Aetius so eloquently pointed out, firearms are not a difficult thing to make. With the sheer amount of money available in drug running, caused directly by its illegality, they'd have figured out a way to arm themselves regardless. And it would probably have been worse, because once they were building their own guns, they might as well make fully automatic weapons, you know?

The only reason they don't do that is the easy availability of high quality but relatively low lethality weapons. Without that existing supply, they'd have a powerful motivation to create one.

I mean, these guys are building freaking submarines. Building guns is not going to be a problem.

"I've been playing Rebel Galaxy for the past few days. It has made me appreciate every other game in the genre more." -- Flintheart Glomgold

I mean, these guys are building freaking submarines. Building guns is not going to be a problem.

The vast majority of drug-related crime is perpetrated by common thugs, addicts and gang-bangers, and even the most organized street gang can't really be compared to a paramilitary revolution front with a dedicated naval force. But hey, if we are exploring the fringes of possibility than we should be less concerned with crackheads building their own guns and start worrying about them building time machines, traveling backward in time and strangling our grandmothers in the crib. They just want that crack so bad!

"They say that beauty is only skin deep but your skeleton looks pretty good to me.” -Jamal River

I mean, these guys are building freaking submarines. Building guns is not going to be a problem.

The vast majority of drug-related crime is perpetrated by common thugs, addicts and gang-bangers, and even the most organized street gang can't really be compared to a paramilitary revolution front with a dedicated naval force. But hey, if we are exploring the fringes of possibility than we should be less concerned with crackheads building their own guns and start worrying about them building time machines, traveling backward in time and strangling our grandmothers in the crib. They just want that crack so bad!

Pretty much this. Most crack dealers live with their mothers in public housing. It's not like they're going to be renting time on Cincinnati Millicron machines anytime soon.

Pretty much this. Most crack dealers live with their mothers in public housing. It's not like they're going to be renting time on Cincinnati Millicron machines anytime soon.

Actually most improvised guns could be made from things found dumpster diving, it's just that most people, including your friendly local crackheads, wouldn't be aware of the concept of improvised guns as a possibility, let alone have the knowledge or expertise to make one. Plus, these weapons are notorious for their inaccuracy, ineffectiveness, and the tendency to blow up in the user's hand just as often as properly fire. I can't imagine that Jimmy Gang-banger would feel thrilled to use a weapon that he saw backfire and kill one of his homes the week before when he could just as easily use a knife or bat instead.

"They say that beauty is only skin deep but your skeleton looks pretty good to me.” -Jamal River